VISHNU SAHAI, J. ( 1 ) THROUGH this appeal appellant Kamlesh Dwivedi challenges the judgment and order dated 27-9-1994 and 28-9-1994 passed by the Sessions judge, Hardoi in Sessions Trial No. 311 of 1992 whereby he has been convicted and sentenced respectively to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Section 302, I. P. C. ( 2 ) HORTLY stated, the prosecution case runs as under : the deceased Ran] ana was the wife of appellant Kamlesh. She was married to him on 26-6-1987. After marriage Ranjana lived for sometime at the house of the appellant in village Kaimau. When she used to go to the house of her parents she used to complain to her father and brother Aishwarya prakash (PW 1) that the appellant was demanding a gold chain and a T. V. in dowry and since the said demand was not being fulfilled, he was harassing and misbehaving with her. In June, 1989 the appellant visited the house of informant Aishwarya prakash and requested his elder brother raju to keep Ranjana at his house. On this raju went to the house of the appellant and brought Ranjana with him. Ranjana, however, did not want to sever her relations with appellant and wrote to him several letters mentioning therein that he should settle the differences. However, they were not settled. On 4-3-1992 Ranjana went to the ancestral house of the appellant in village Shiroman nagar in order to clean the same. The appellant reached there on 12-3-1992 and stayed there till 14-3-1992. He asked ranjana to accompany him, but Ranjana flatly told him that she would only accompany him after the entire dispute was settled. On 14-3-1992 at about 4 p. m. while ranjana and the appellant were alone in the house, the appellant tied her hands with a dhoti; sprinkled kerosene oil from lantern; and set her on fire after bolting the room from inside. He thereafter ran away. Shyam prakash Pandey a resident of the said village on hearing the alarm of Ranjana took her out from the room; extinguished fire; brought her to the District Hospital, Hardoi; and got her admitted there. He also informed ranjanas brother, the informant Aishwarya prakash (PW 1) about the incident. ( 3 ) THE evidence of Dr. S. K. Srivastava (PW 8) shows that on 14-3-1992 at 7. He also informed ranjanas brother, the informant Aishwarya prakash (PW 1) about the incident. ( 3 ) THE evidence of Dr. S. K. Srivastava (PW 8) shows that on 14-3-1992 at 7. 55 p. m. he was posted in District Hospital, Hardoi and on the said date and time he medically examined Ranjana and found on her person 100% burns of IInd to Illrd degree. In his statement in the trial Court Dr. Srivastava stated that it was possible that ranjana was burnt on the said date, at 4 p. m. ( 4 ) THE evidence of informant Aishwarya prakash (PW 1) shows that on 14-3-1992 at about 7 p. m. he received information from shyam Prakash Pandey that Ranjana had been burnt by the appellant and was hospitalized in the District Hospital, Hardoi. Con-sequently he went there and on enquiry ranjana told him that the appellant after tying her hands with a dhoti poured kerosene oil on her, set her on fire, after bolting the room from Inside. She also told him that shyam Prakash Pandey rescued her. ( 5 ) THE evidence of Aishwarya Prakash mishra also shows that on 18-3-1992 he lodged an F; I. R. in respect of the incident at police station, Behta Gokul, district hordoi. On the basis of said F. I. R. an offence punishable under Section 498-A/326, i. P. C. was registered against the appellant. ( 6 ) FROM the evidence on record it transpires that after admission of Ranjana in district Hospital, Hardoi, information was sent to Executive Magistrate Ram Kripal srivastava (PW 3} and he was asked to proceed to District Hospital, Hardoi and record the dying declaration of Ranjana. ( 7 ) THE evidence of Ram Kripal Srivastava (PW 3) in short, shows : on 14-3-1992 he was posted as Executive Magistrate at Hardoi. On receiving information from District Hospital, Hardoi, he proceeded to the said hospital to record the dying declaration of Ranjana. In order to satisfy himself whether she was in a mentally fit condition to make the dying declaration he got her medically examined by Dr. G. L. Gautam (PW 5 ). Dr. G. L. Gautam examined her at 11. 15 p. m. and certified vide ext. Ka 9 that she was mentally fit to make a dying declaration. Thereafter he recorded her declaration (Ext. Ka 3a ). G. L. Gautam (PW 5 ). Dr. G. L. Gautam examined her at 11. 15 p. m. and certified vide ext. Ka 9 that she was mentally fit to make a dying declaration. Thereafter he recorded her declaration (Ext. Ka 3a ). A perusal of the said declaration in short shows as under : she was wife of the appellant. At 4. 30 p. m. while she and the appellant were all alone In the house, the appellant tied her hands and legs; poured kerosene oil from the lantern on her person; and set her on fire. Shyam Prakash Pandey and some others rescued her. The reason for the incident furnished by her was that the appellant wanted to take her with him but she was not prepared to go. The evidence of P. W. 3 also shows that after he had recorded the statement of ranjana he again asked Dr. Gautam (P. W. 5)to medically examine her. The evidence of dr. Gautam shows that he medically examined her vide Ext. Ka. 11. A perusal of Ext. Ka. 11 shows that Ranjana was fully fit during her statement. It is pertinent to mention that certificates of fitness given by Dr. Gautam, both prior to the recording of statement of Ranjana and after recording of the same are incorporated on the paper on which her dying declaration (Ext. Ka 3) has been recorded by the executive Magistrate. ( 8 ) THE evidence is that Ranjana remained admitted as an indoor patient in the District Hospital Hardoi till 7. 40 a. m. on 10-4-1992, at which time and date she died. ( 9 ) THE autopsy on the corpse of Ranjana was conducted by Dr. V. K. Gupta (P. W. 2), who found burn injuries present over front of chest, abdomen, both lower and upper limbs excepting soles and palms, back of chest, neck and pelvic region. The doctor also found pus present at different places. The cause of death spelt out in the post mortem report was septecaemla as a result of ante-mortem burn Injuries which the deceased had suffered. It is pertinent to mention that in his deposition in the trial Court Dr. Gupta reiterated. the said cause of death. ( 10 ) GOING backwards, prior to the death of Ranjana, on 23-3-1992 S. I. Suresh Babu recorded the statement of Ranjana, under section 161 Cr. It is pertinent to mention that in his deposition in the trial Court Dr. Gupta reiterated. the said cause of death. ( 10 ) GOING backwards, prior to the death of Ranjana, on 23-3-1992 S. I. Suresh Babu recorded the statement of Ranjana, under section 161 Cr. P. C. The said statement is ext. Ka. 12 and has been tendered by the prosecution as a dying declaration. Since the version furnished by her therein is almost identical to that furnished by her in her statement recorded by the Executive Magistrate Ram Kripal Srivastava we are not setting forth the details contained in it. ( 11 ) ONCE again going backwards the investigation was conducted by the S. I. Suresh babu (P. W. 9) and C. O. Mohan Singh (P. W. 6 ). The later after completing it submitted the charge-sheet against the appellant on 7-5-1992. ( 12 ) THE case was committed to the Court of Sessions in the usual manner, where the appellant was charged for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A/304-B I. P. C. and in the alternative under Section 302 i. P. C. After being charged he was put up for trial. The learned trial Judge acquitted the appellant for offences punishable under Sections 498-A/304-B I. P. C. because neither in the F. I. R. nor in the dying declarations was there a whisper in respect of demand of T. V. and gold chain. However, the learned Judge believed the three dying declarations made by Ranjana; one to her brother Aishwarya prakash Mishra (P. W. 1); one recorded by ram Kripal Srivastava (P. W. 3); and one recorded by S. I. Suresh Babu (P. W. 9), and convicted and sentenced the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 i. P. C. ( 13 ) IT is a matter of profound regret that although the appeal pertains to the year 1994 and the appellant is languishing in jail for the last 10 years learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. M. S. Syal is not present. Since the appellant is in jail for the last ten years we did not think it appropriate to adjourn the appeal and instead thought it appropriate to dispose it off on merits with the assistance of learned Additional Public prosecutor Mr. Umesh Verma. M. S. Syal is not present. Since the appellant is in jail for the last ten years we did not think it appropriate to adjourn the appeal and instead thought it appropriate to dispose it off on merits with the assistance of learned Additional Public prosecutor Mr. Umesh Verma. That we can do so is clear from the ratio laid down in paragraph 15 of the oft-quoted case of Bani singh v. State of U. P. , ( AIR 1996 SC 2439 ) : 1996 All LJ 1399 : (1996 Cri LJ 3491 ). ( 14 ) IT would become manifest from the above that the learned trial Judge has based the conviction of the appellant on three dying declarations made by the deceased ranjana; one to her brother Aishwarya prakash Mishra (P. W. 1); one to Ram Kripal srivastava (Executive Magistrate) (P. W. 3); and one to the S. I. Suresh Babu (P. W. 9 ). ( 15 ) WE have gone through the said dying declarations and for the reasons enumerated hereinafter we find that they inspire confidence. We would first like to take up the oral dying declaration made by Ranjana to her brother Aishwarya Prakash Mishra. The evidence of Aishwarya Prakash Mishra (P. W. 1) shows that on 14-3-1992 (the date of incident) at about 7 p. m. he learnt from Shyam prakash Pandey that his sister Ranjana has been burnt by the appellant and was hospitalized in district Hospital Hardol. Consequently he went there and on enquiry from her learnt that her husband-appellant kamlesh after tying her hands with a dhoti poured kerosene oil on her and set her on fire inside a bolted room and she was rescued by Shyam Prakash Pandey and others. We have examined the said oral dying declaration made by Ranjana and we find it trustworthy. In our view it was natural for aishwarya Prakash Mishra, who was the brother of Ranjana to have made enquiry from her as to how she was burnt and it was equally natural for Ranjana who was hovering between life and death, to have made such a declaration to her own brother. ( 16 ) FOR the said reasons in our view, this oral declaration inspires confidence. ( 16 ) FOR the said reasons in our view, this oral declaration inspires confidence. ( 17 ) WE now take up the second dying declaration, namely statement of Ranjana, which was recorded by Ram Kripal srivastava (Executive Magistrate) (P. W. 3 ). We have seen that on 14-3-1992 on receiving information from District Hospital, hardoi, he went there and recorded the statement of Ranjana. We have also seen that prior to recording it, in order to satisfy himself whether Ranjana was mentally fit to make a declaration, he got her medically examined by Dr. J. L. Gautam (P. W. 5), who certified vide Ext. Ka. 9 that she was mentally fit to make such a declaration. We have seen that thereafter he recorded the declaration, wherein Ranjana stated that after bolting the room from inside, the appellant tied her hands; set her on fire; and Shyam prakash Pandey rescued her. We have also seen that after the declaration had been recorded, Executive Magistrate again asked dr. Gautam to medically examine Ranjana and on examining her (vide Ext. Ka. 11) Dr. Gautam found that she was mentally fit while making the statement. It is significant to point out that both the certificates of fitness namely Ext. Ka. 9 and Ext. Ka 11 are incorporated on the paper on which Ram kripal Srivastava recorded Ext. Ka 3a (the statement of Ranjana ). It is pertinent to mention that although ram Kripal Srivastava, Executive Magistrate (P. W. 3) and Dr. J. L. Gautam (P. W. 5) were extensively cross-examined but nothing could be elicited therefrom which could impair the credibility of this dying declaration. It is also pertinent to mention that in his cross-examination Dr. Gautam stated that before the Executive Magistrate recorded the statement of Ranjana, he asked the members of the family, who were present, to leave the place, and only thereafter her statement was recorded. This obviously shows that the dying declaration cannot be stigmatized as being tutored. 17a. For the aforesaid reasons, we believe this dying declaration. ( 18 ) WE now come to the third dying dec-laration, namely, the statement of Ran]ana recorded. by S. I. Suresh Babu (P. W. 9 ). We have seen that on 23-3-1992 S. I. Suresh babu recorded the aforesaid statement. 17a. For the aforesaid reasons, we believe this dying declaration. ( 18 ) WE now come to the third dying dec-laration, namely, the statement of Ran]ana recorded. by S. I. Suresh Babu (P. W. 9 ). We have seen that on 23-3-1992 S. I. Suresh babu recorded the aforesaid statement. We have also seen that the narration given by her therein is almost identical to the ver-sion given by her to the Executive Magis-trate Ram Kripal Srivastava. We are not oblivious to the fact that this court only accepts a dying declaration re-corded in the form of a statement under section 161 Cr. P. C. if it has not been sub-jected to utmost scrutiny. We have done that exercise and find that this dying declara-tion also inspires confidence. ( 19 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons we are of the judgment that the three dying declara-tions of Ranjana inspire implicit confidence and the learned trial judge acted correctly in convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 I. P. C. Since the appellant has been awarded the lesser of the two punishments under section 302 i. P. C. , namely, imprisonment for life, there is no question of reducing his sentence. ( 20 ) IN the result, we confirm the convic-tion of the appellant for the offence punish-able under section 302 I. P. C. ; the sentence of imprisonment for life awarded to him thereunder; and dismiss the appeal. The appellant is in jail and shall serve out the sentence. Appeal dismissed. .